A rational deduction

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- It seems to me that the Islamofascists of Hezbollah have made a parlous mistake. They have demonstrated that they have missiles that can cause dreadful localized carnage and that they are continuing to improve those missiles. Someday these weapons will be able to cause widespread carnage. Hezbollah's killers have demonstrated that they will infiltrate their brutes into civilian neighborhoods and use suicide bombers. They have refused to abide by U.N. resolutions. They have revealed that they have powerful supporters in Syria and Iran. Actually the Syrians and Iranians have not been coy about showing their support for Hezbollah's brutal asymmetrical warfare, and here they too have made a mistake. In their unconscionable bellicosity, Hezbollah's guerrillas, the Syrians and the Iranians have all donned bull's-eyes. They have made themselves targets.

That is the only rational deduction. Quite obviously rational deduction does not have a place in the mentality of Hezbollah's leader, the Rev. Hassan Nasrallah, or in the mentality of the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who raves on about how Israel must be destroyed and the misery he is going to cause America. Rational deduction does play a role in the mentality of the Israelis and the Americans. Both are now aware of how dangerous Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are. And the clock is ticking, for as the distinguished scholar of Middle Eastern affairs, Bernard Lewis, noted in the Wall Street Journal the other day, "It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal."

So what is the rational deduction we are to make regarding brutal irrational opponents who are on their way to controlling nuclear weapons? Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated it in an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly when he said that in dealing with Iran and its nuclear program, "I don't think you can take the military option off the table." Surely this does not mean sending an army into Iran. Our forces, mainly the superb soldiers of the English-speaking countries, are stretched; and one would not expect support from NATO's mainly ceremonial armies. They do well in military parades and occasionally even in military maneuvers, but they avoid war zones. As I say, their armies are mainly ceremonial, and if they have any plans to upgrade them it might be best if they contained their refitting to sartorial matters. Perhaps they might adopt colorful sashes and plumed helmets after the manner of the uniforms they wore in the 19th century, what for them constituted the "good old days."